In response to my previous post on true libertarianism, I received a bit of positive feedback and a majority of commenters who simply didn’t get it.
To those who would make an argument like Anonymous on the post – Who has decreed that government force should only protect human liberty? Furthermore, how do you define human, and why does an animal have any less interest in being protected by government force than these humans you speak of? Here are refutations of pretty much all possible arguments you could put forth here.
1.) “Animals are not as smart as humans.” – What about a severely mentally retarded infant? What about, for that matter, a newborn baby, which certainly has less of a capacity to think than any factory farmed animal. What about an 80-year-old with Alzheimer’s disease, compared to the great apes or dolphins which have been shown in studies numerous times to have a huge capacity for sentience? What about any cow/dog/pig compared to Terri Schiavo, whose brain had absolutely no function nor hope of it, yet she had the legislative body of the most powerful nation on Earth falling all over itself to protect her right to life?
If the idea of subjecting any of the above-named human groups to a slow, prolonged death gives you a shudder, perhaps you should give a single thought to the literally billions of animals that are more intelligent (and possibly more capable of understanding pain) and put to death every week.
Anonymous, if you would classify a severely mentally disabled person as property, perhaps you can then state that animals should also be declared as such. But otherwise, there is no reason animals should necessarily be treated simply as property, as if they’re a bicycle or a chair.
Secondly, what if, for example, IQ tests showed that men are not as intelligent as women or white people are not as smart as black people? Would that be a sufficient reason to deny rights to men or white people?
2.) God created humans in His image, and they are therefore superior.
If you’re as much of a Jew or a Christian as you imply making this argument, take a look at what actually happens in factory farming and see whether that is part of God’s plan or if that is maybe part of humans’ evil free will that needs to be eradicated. Did God say “He makes me lie down in excrement”? Certainly not. A Christian who makes arguments involving God and animals should, at the very least, be a vegan or vegetarian and have nothing to do with factory farming, which is the antithesis of what happened on Noah’s Ark.
3.) It’s always been that way.
Any libertarian should be justifiably suspicious of something that has always been, and know that this is not a symptom of whether something is correct or not. In fact, it’s probably the opposite.
4.) Humans have “earned” our way to the “top of the food chain” due to evolution.
There are many animals that will eat humans if given the chance. I assume that you are in favor of tearing down all zoo walls and just shrugging any time you hear of a shark “attack”? (we’ll rename it a shark lunch, with the shark just having a delicious human sandwich)
By bringing evolution into the discussion, anyone who tries to use this argument also runs up against a few pesky facts: our DNA is extremely close to other primates, way more than, say, dogs, which are granted special protections by the law.
5.) Humans are different than animals, due to some sort of magic unspecified in the arguments above that I can’t give any arguments for.
Of course, this is the silliest argument of all, and goes straight to the [fill in the blank with random insult] Hall of Fame. It’s right there next to “giving more money to education will increase the graduation rate, although it never has it will still somehow magically happen nationwide next year” and “running the country into unprecedented deficits is really a sign of my fiscal responsibility, trust me it’s just magical, re-elect me and you’ll see”.
In other words, these arguments are all inherently idiotic (the next-to-last, when made by any meat-eating Christian) and unsupported by evidence.
Phoption and Rachel made similar comments: “I took a turkey’s life; you took a plant’s life. What difference does it make? For a human to live, life must die” and “plants are alive, and capable of both stimuli and thought” — these two commenters are missing the point entirely. It does not matter that animals are alive, humans are alive, or plants are alive. It matters that humans and animals are sentient. Plants are not, they do not suffer, (for that matter, they are not subjected to long, excruciating deaths in veal crates and battery cages, why not try that out, Phoption and Rachel?), and therefore they do not deserve to be put on the same plane of consideration as humans. That, above all else, is clear, and these comments were pretty disappointing to me.
There is probably more suffering in a glass of milk than there is in a steak.
It is really quite simple: If one takes nonhuman animal interests serious, one stops exploiting them, which can only be done by adopting a vegan lifestyle.
Michael Prejean
January 16th, 2010
My comment disappointed you? I’ll try to do better this time. Since you posted 5 straw man arguments that had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, I’m going to stick with my original point.
Libertarianism is about freedom. And though I believe it to be the highest goal of good government, I’m really not sure if it can done at all levels of government (federal, state, and local here in the USA). There are so many gray areas that come up, especially when lots of people live close together in a big city.
Now my concern with your suggestion that government protection of liberty be extended to all animals is that it’s just not practical. For example, if I accidentally hit a pedestrian with my car, there are serious consequences to my action. Now what if I accidentally hit a squirrel with my car? What consequences would the government force upon me?
I could go on and on, but I’m not really sure if my examples are relevant to what you are suggesting that government do (you’ve been vague on that point). But whatever government action you advocate, I’m going to ask myself how does it affect my personal freedom in order for me to decide if I support or oppose it.
anonymous
January 31st, 2010
Your idea seems to be that all animals have the same rights.
I’m not aware that it’s a violation of Libertarian principals to say children should have less rights – such as making it illegal for 5-year-olds to smoke cigars. To a lesser degree, a parent forbidding their 5-year-old to smoke cigars.
This sounds less like libertarianism and more like anarchy.
If that is your view, does it carry so far as to forbid animal slavery – from draft horses to seeing-eye dogs?
Michael
February 5th, 2010
I hate to state the obvious, but whether plants feel “pain” is much less relevant. Veganism is still the more compassionate choice because you can either eat the animal (that ate the plants) or eat the plants (and far fewer than are shoveled through say a cow). For example, 11 lbs of grain are fed to a cow to produce 1 lb of “meat”. Don’t tell me you really think that broccoli has the same consciousness as a pig (who have been described as smarter than dogs).
Who knows at some point we may learn plants ability to sense pain (pain makes no evolutionary sense since they can’t run away). And you will rejoice. HA HA stupid vegetarian do-gooders! But the fact remains far less killing is involved by eating plants directly. To live means something else might not. We are not gods. We cannot escape nature. But to use some kind of black and white argument without logic separating human “meat” from animal “meat” makes no sense. To live without making conscious choices makes no sense.
And unless I missed it Michael, I didn’t see any mention of the proposed governmental response. Can’t libertarians exist making choices about their own lives without the government imposing the decision? Sure, I hear what you are saying, the subject gets sticky when you consider animal “rights” in regards to the human legal system.
But without some concrete logic as to why its ok to do WHATEVER you want to animal but not ok to do any harm to another human, it fails the libertarian principles in my mind. Unless you bring god into it, I can’t see the magically line drawn at humans. What about a fetus? Does that count as a human or is it sill in the lower castes?
This is an incredible libertarian dilemma. If you want to just say “animals are different” without a logical and universal reason why, its sounds a whole lot more like “Animals taste good to me and damn you for making me justify myself!”. We did that to people of other colors, of other classes, of other genders, of other mental capabilities and now it’s time to face this conundrum.
The law and the Constitution is a pact amongst humans. The question of animal rights and libertarianism will be interesting. I’m not saying what the government’s role should be (if any). What I am asking is what is preventing you, the person with free choice, from making the choice that causes less harm and suffering to those who cannot speak out for themselves in a court of law. What is stopping you from extending freedom besides your tongue?
And to how this sounds like anarchy? You’ve really stumped me there….
The Green Libertarian
February 7th, 2010
The response I’ve always found compelling is that “eating the plants directly” makes a big assumption – that the plants are edible to humans. You’re also assuming that the land used to grow cattle feed could also grow plants that humans can eat. This is not a small detail.
As for why animals are different than humans. That’s simple. Animals are stupid. The brightest pig or sheep will never be the intellectual superior to the average human. They are a lower form of life.
To take your logic seriously, that animals and humans are moral equals, means you value the life of a human and an animal equally. I do not, and I’m willing to sacrifice the lives of animals to save humans.
That’s not to say animal lives have zero value. If vegetarian food could compete with meat in the realm of taste, nutrition, cost and convenience, than I would switch over. With today’s technology, it does not.
Michael
February 7th, 2010
I hope you’ll take a look at our forum:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarians_for_animal_rights
It’d be nice if you added your blog address to our Links.
Thanks,
JND
James N. Dawson
February 12th, 2010
Thanks for the link, James, and the very eloquent defense, Green Libertarian. We may just be soulmates as you make the same arguments I do.
Michael- If intelligence is the factor in whether something can be abused or eaten, what about the rights of a pig compared to a newborn baby? The pig is most certainly smarter than the baby. What about the rights of a pig in comparison to a mentally retarded child or adult who will never get better? The pig is smarter, so I guess if the pig saw fit to eat the mentally retarded child, that would be fine with you. Mentally retarded people must also be a “lower form of life” according to your definition because they are not as intelligent as what you define as a normal human being. a
A good portion of the land used for livestock grazing is actually rainforest– it’s the number one cause of deforestation in those areas. We wouldn’t have to use every acre of land currently used for grazing to grow plants in order to feed the people of the world who currently starve -we could just grow the same amount of crops and feed them to people rather than cows.
Why would any lives of animals have to be sacrificed to “save” humans? If anything, I’d define becoming vegetarian as the moment I was “saved.” I became healthier, both physically and mentally.
“If vegetarian food could compete with meat in the realm of taste, nutrition, cost and convenience, than I would switch over. With today’s technology, it does not.”
You’re joking, right? Or is this another case of no real arguments existing, so ones are just made up on the spot? I’ve had the best foods I’ve ever tasted since I’ve become vegetarian. You’re not actually trying to say that meat is healthier than plants? Please consult Pubmed and see what causes heart disease and cancer. You might as well call hospitals “recovery centers for the side effects of meat eating.”
Cost? Sure, a veggie burger may cost more than a Big Mac, but you either pay now or you pay later, in the health problems described above. It is not expensive to eat plants, and to the extent that McDonald’s does have its dollar menu full of burgers, it’s only through government subsidies/bailouts directed at the meat industry which no true libertarian could support.
libertariangirl
March 2nd, 2010
[...] I care for kids, families, the sick and the elderly, working class, middle class, and every American. To end poverty and advance the American Dream, I am Libertarian Girl. « Can You Be Libertarian If You’re Not Vegan? Responses [...]
Libertarian Girl » Blog Archive » Should I Allow Kidney Sales On My Blog?
March 2nd, 2010
Michael,
Thanks for the response but again, you dodge the bullet. I never said there was a moral equivalency. But just because there is not 100% moral equivalency does not mean there is a 0% moral equivalency. Using intellect as solely a measure of whether a being deserves consideration or not leaves out whole groups of humans, who for whatever reason lack “average” intellect, from your reasoning. I propose that intellect isn’t relevant to whether you should be fodder or not. Your capacity to experience and feel pain should.
As for the LCC/LCA of eating plants directly, I never said that it was an equal trade off for humans to eat the what they feed to animals. Since you offer no real data, I’ll respond this way – some 90% of the soybeans grown in the US are fed to livestock. Yes, that one example, soybeans, if edible by humans. If the return is 9:1 of input:output (reasonable for beef) and even if human efficacy at soybeans was only 2:1, then its still 4.5x less than running it through an animal (ignoring the other energy inputs of raising and maintaining animals). This isn’t the 30′s anymore and I’m not getting into the “well cows eat grass” argument cause that idealistic pasture only exists in your head for 99% of commercial food. I’m not going to say that veg*nism is the most environmental choice. But it is way more environmental than the commercially produced meat if you consider all the inputs to the system. If resources and money could be used as a general metric of how environmentally taxing any food is, than why do most poor countries tend to eat less meat than the US? Its not because of some ethic for animals. Its because it takes more land, energy, calories to have your diet be meat centered.
Life Cycle Cost / Analysis has a long way to come and I am certainly interested in what the best choices are even if its not veg*nism.
The most ecologically sound way to live is probably a subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But let’s face it, that’s not our world now, and wouldn’t support the population we are dealing with. Nor am I some armchair intellectual eating posh vegan food at the finest dineries. I grow as much of my own food as possible so I can see, feel, and taste what it takes to put that food on my plate.
So though I appreciate the words of wisdom, they are seem like another “I like meat therefore I see things they way that’s convenient” argument.
Green Libertarian
March 4th, 2010
I’m a libertarian (anarchist, really) and sort of the opposite of a vegan; a fellow named Owsley was able to convince me that the most natural and healthful diet for humans is an entirely carnivorous one, so I only eat meat and dairy with small amounts of spices. My main meal every day is a 2–3 lb steak, as rare as possible, with lots of butter and grated Pecorino Romano. I also like cream, extra large eggs (for breakfast, I will have six or seven), fish, chicken, pork, and bison.
I think that to say there is nothing that “really” distinguishes us from other animals is absurd; humans take rational action, using means to achieve our ends, while a beast involuntarily reacts, pursuing only the base instincts that humans are capable of suppressing in the interest of higher goals. I do not ravish every woman that stirs my senses, devour every piece of food that entices me, and knock down every fellow I’d like to kill. A child’s reasoning may be imperfect, but it is still reasoning. Animals do not take rational action, they do not develop new technologies, they do not accumulate capital, and they do not display awareness of their own mortality.
Regardless of whether humans are special, demanding veganism is saying, in effect, that animals are. Why do they have a right not to be killed by man? Animals kill each other all the time. Would you deny a lion the right to eat to eat a wildebeest because they are moral equals? A moral choice to refrain from eating other animals would in fact make us even more special, and under your logic even more entitled to eat other animals.
We are carnivores. We need to eat meat. Until we can grow it without a brain, we will kill other animals to get it.
“I propose that intellect isn’t relevant to whether you should be fodder or not. Your capacity to experience and feel pain should.”
Do you consider humans in vegetative states morally equivalent to actual vegetables?
Cal Engime
May 21st, 2010
I eat animal crackers, am I inhumane?
dobropet
June 14th, 2010
Since this Owsley has no empirical evidence on his side, he must be pretty persuasive, and his diet will be your own ‘punishment’ in due time according to actual scientific literature!
Read a few of Jane Goodall’s monographs about the chimpanzees at Gombe and then you will be hard-pressed to say that animals are not capable of rational action.
I think that humans are uniquely capable of making moral choices, a major one of which can be the diet. That is a way that we are superior to animals, yet few of us show it.
If humans are so superior and so destined to eat animals for food, when’s the last time you ate someone’s dog? There are all sorts of strays running around.
Not willing to eat a dog? What about a whale or a monkey? OK, well then there’s some sort of cognitive dissonance happening there. If all animals are so inferior to us, and we are destined to eat them, why do we pick and choose which ones we do eat? Obviously this is not a rational decision that’s being made, but a cultural norm that’s being adhered to.
“Why do they have a right not to be killed by man? Animals kill each other all the time.”
OK, let’s take this thought experiment to its natural conclusion. You’re in Florida, and a panther is coming towards you to eat you. At that moment, the panther is far superior to you and is at the top of the food chain. Would you deny the panther its “right” to a tasty meal of you? We kill animals all the time, after all, and obviously one on one you can’t fight off the panther. If you would say that someone should step in to prevent the panther from enjoying its natural meal (you), then you can’t resort to any naturalistic arguments like we are the top of the food chain and animals kill so we can kill them. You already state that animals aren’t rational, then you want to hold them accountable for their actions. That makes no sense whether someone agrees with you on the first count or not.
“Do you consider humans in vegetative states morally equivalent to actual vegetables?”
No, and I can’t imagine why you would think I do.
libertariangirl
June 30th, 2010
“Since this Owsley has no empirical evidence on his side, he must be pretty persuasive, and his diet will be your own ‘punishment’ in due time according to actual scientific literature!”
Owsley has been eating this way since 1959, when he read about the explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson discovering that the Inuit lived on nothing but meat and fish for most of the year, and that he and his European companions were also perfectly healthy on such a diet. Now 75 years old, Owsley credits his diet with slowing the growth of the tumor he was treated for in 2004 and allowing him to survive.
“Not willing to eat a dog? What about a whale or a monkey?”
Actually, I am. Eating a stray dog does not sound very sanitary, but I would be willing to try dog, whale, and monkey. Many people in the world do eat dogs, whales, and monkeys, so they can’t taste too bad.
“Obviously this is not a rational decision that’s being made, but a cultural norm that’s being adhered to.”
Following a cultural norm is a rational decision, but I don’t eat beef every day because it’s normal. I eat it because it tastes the best and I can obtain it easily.
“OK, let’s take this thought experiment to its natural conclusion. You’re in Florida, and a panther is coming towards you to eat you. At that moment…”
…I shoot the panther. In the head, a bunch of times. Humans use tools, and Florida is a shall-issue state. I’m sure you wouldn’t like that, because they’re endangered, but you have only yourself to blame for putting me in this horrible situation.
Obviously, not everybody has the good sense to bring a gun when they wander into the south Florida wilderness. However, there is still time for natural selection to do its good work.
My gun is a .45 ACP Colt M1911 if you’re interested in arguing that my bullets would lack adequate stopping power.
“No, and I can’t imagine why you would think I do.”
I can’t say for certain what I had in mind all those months ago, but it probably has to do with your last point: “It matters that humans and animals are sentient. Plants are not, they do not suffer, (for that matter, they are not subjected to long, excruciating deaths in veal crates and battery cages, why not try that out, Phoption and Rachel?), and therefore they do not deserve to be put on the same plane of consideration as humans.”
In your first point, you argue that whether or not one has rights shouldn’t depend on sentience, but in the end, you hold that sentience is everything. I don’t think that Terry Schiavo was capable of suffering in any conventional sense of the word, considering that most of her brain was gone, but you list her among the humans who have a right to live in spite of their imperfect reasoning processes. However, you believe that there is nothing wrong with eating a plant, because we do not observe any biological process that you interpret as pain or suffering.
Cal Engime
July 19th, 2010